[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [git pull] cpus4096 tree, part 3

    * Nick Piggin <> wrote:

    > On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:37:23PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > >
    > > * Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > What happened to Nick's cleanup patch to do_page_fault (a month or two
    > > > ago? I complained about some of the issues in his first version and
    > > > asked for some further cleanups, but I think that whole discussion ended
    > > > with him saying "I am going to add those changes that you suggested (in
    > > > fact, I already have)".
    > > >
    > > > And then I didn't see anything further. Maybe I just missed the end
    > > > result. Or maybe we have it in some -mm branch or something?
    > >
    > > they would have been in tip/x86/mm and would be upstream now had Nick
    > > re-sent a v2 series but that never happened. I think they might have
    > > fallen victim to a serious attention deficit caused by the SLQB patch ;-)
    > Well, I already added Linus's suggestions but didn't submit it because
    > there was a bit of work going on in that file as far as I could see,
    > both in the x86 tree and in -mm:
    > (
    > It isn't a big deal to resolve either way, but I don't want to make
    > Andrew's life harder.
    > [Yes OK now I'm the guilty one of pushing in an x86 patch not via the
    > x86 tree ;) This one is easy to break in pieces, but I didn't want to
    > create a dependency between the trees]

    That's OK, and the oom-killer patch impact on x86 was incidental, so it
    was correct to push it via -mm IMO.

    Now that the bits that went in via Andrew's tree upstream, there's a
    handful of new conflicts in the patch - so would you mind to (re-)send a
    merged up patch against latest -git?


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-07 18:33    [W:0.021 / U:55.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site